Those are all gaps and variances because the game is kind of a stitch together of two very different aspects that don't necessarily meet gracefully.
I quite like this analysis and the explanation of the split personality sense that you get. But would add that although I'm probably more at the 'pulpy' end for most purposes, I like that you can introduce the details - perhaps just for one scenario/adventure in a campaign - to give variety as well as a Rich Decision Making Environment for that particular evening's excitement.
The Traveller Adventure does this very well. (Particularly if you compare it to some other very monochrome campaigns I could mention). I'm fairly sure it was deliberate (I think it says as much somewhere) but work through its different chapters and the whole thing introduces you to lots of different aspects of Traveller. In general it's pretty pulpy but then you get bits where there is more detail (e.g. anything from ships to do space combat in Trade War to bureaucrats on Zila for role playing). It's clear that the bureaucrats - which even comes with a small generator for them! - are not expected to be used anywhere else even though they could be and are presumably present. And vice versa.
So I like the 'there when you need it; in the background when you don't' approach that seems to me to be Traveller's great strength. Reversing it gives Marc's dictum: Map Only As Necessary.
Of course it can all go horribly wrong, delving into some detail, as my post later in the day (once I've got a lecture today out of the way) will show.
Right, I really must get on. Stop being so interesting everyone. :-)
tc
